The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

[The Crow]

Astro-Theology is theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies. I would have to disagree that its a religion.

[Peter Kirby]

Perhaps it could be compared to pantheism or deism, in its non-religious form.

To carry this comparison further, one might say that a deist is biased in a sense against any conclusions involving miracles (since his God is 'hands off').

And, while it is no necessary part of it, perhaps anyone who assents to Astro-Theology would also be more inclined to see instances of it in the history of religions?

Just a thought.

[Ulan]

Well, it's still Astro-"Theo"logy. Denying the religious implications seems a tad silly.

[neilgodfrey]

If astrotheology is a belief system with contemporary relevance -- (both Acharya S and Robert Tulip have said it is in some sense a science-based spiritual or religious belief system with relevance today) -- then I can begin to understand why the emphasis in argument has been upon modern findings of astronomy and what modern astronomers have come to understand.

[The Crow]

Well, it's still Astro-"Theo"logy. Denying the religious implications seems a tad silly.

Who is denying the religious implications? Not me.

[The Crow]

If astrotheology is a belief system with contemporary relevance -- (both Acharya S and Robert Tulip have said it is in some sense a science-based spiritual or religious belief system with relevance today) -- then I can begin to understand why the emphasis in argument has been upon modern findings of astronomy and what modern astronomers have come to understand.

Contemporary relevance in terms of Astrology maybe. I find it a fascinating subject but there is just not a whole lot out there on it.

[Mental flatliner]

It is particularly obnoxious when found in the dedication of a formal higher degree thesis. "Obnoxious" because it betrays an interest and motivation that is not entirely scholarly: it is scholarship motivated by confessional interests.

This statement by you betrays your own bias. You appear to be disgusted by the religious expressions of others.

(Or did you not think of that?)

What you're saying is that your own judgment of their work is tainted by your own anti-religious bias, and this bias disqualifies you from offering objective comment.

Almost all the original texts I read have strong religious themes, and many have overt religious displays, especially those on Egyptian monuments, Sumerian myths, midrash, Greek apologists, and even many Roman histories. Few of the religious soliloquys agree with my own religious beliefs, yet I'm able to separate the expressive portions and the religious motivations from the author's observations, and I can gain value from the reading anyway.

I never feel the need to call Sumerians "primitive" because they still anthropomorphize the sun and moon, I never call them sexist pigs when the write poetry about how their women are like fattened cows, and I never feel I'm in a position to judge anything more than the accuracy of their rendering of facts of history.

For you to take the time to do so is a non-academic pursuit. It's simple bigotry.

[Ulan]

Well, it's still Astro-"Theo"logy. Denying the religious implications seems a tad silly.

Who is denying the religious implications? Not me.

OK, so you were probably referring to religion in an organized sense? Sure, it doesn't got that far. Although it's sometimes hard to decide where veneration becomes religion. It's somewhat subjective.

[Ulan]

Few of the religious soliloquys agree with my own religious beliefs, yet I'm able to separate the expressive portions and the religious motivations from the author's observations, and I can gain value from the reading anyway.

Most Christian scholars of religion have no problem with using proper methods when it comes to dissecting other religions. In fact, the bias might even help in being more thorough in one's critique. The problems only occur when it comes to subjects that are dear to one's own heart.

Unfortunately, most atheists don't show much interest in religion - understandably. Which leaves the field to believers. It's necessarily self-selecting, which yields these mountains of apologetic literature that manages to miss even the most glaring signs that don't match their belief.

[neilgodfrey]

It is particularly obnoxious when found in the dedication of a formal higher degree thesis. "Obnoxious" because it betrays an interest and motivation that is not entirely scholarly: it is scholarship motivated by confessional interests.

This statement by you betrays your own bias. You appear to be disgusted by the religious expressions of others.

(Or did you not think of that?)

I hope I am aware of my biases. I at least try to be. But a certain bias of yours is showing here in a way I don't think you realize. Yes, I am biased against mixing supernatural beliefs and motivations in the scholarly work on a secular field of research at a secular university.

You are going way beyond my words when you seem to infer I am intolerant of anyone's personal religion. Far from it.

• Someone very close to me is a Buddhist and I love to watch the beauty and grace of her acts of praying and sacrifice.
• I loved to watch the expressions of religiosity among the Hindus, the Buddhists, Muslims and even the Easter and Christmas processions at the Christian churches when I was living in Singapore. I visited their temples and mosques and churches and especially appreciated timing those visits when priests and devotees were engaged in prayers and ceremonies of various kinds.
• I was once heavily involved in social-political activism and greatly appreciated involvement of local churches in our campaigns despite the fact that their motives were mixed and they spent more time praying than actual hard-planning and the work of organizing. It was good to see them join us and show the world that the churches were with us, too.

But a dedication to God in a higher degree thesis on engineering does not sit well with me personally. To me it is a betrayal of the very nature and foundation of the scholarly process. I realize others disagree, so I accept it as just one of those things that are part of the word: like bugs that annoy me when they bite but that we need to keep the ecosystem in balance.

What you're saying is that your own judgment of their work is tainted by your own anti-religious bias, and this bias disqualifies you from offering objective comment.

Perhaps by now -- if you read the above -- now have a better idea of what I am saying in my own words. I have no doubt that the engineering thesis itself is scholarly and it won't rely upon miraculous intervention to keep industrial programs or buildings safe.

Almost all the original texts I read have strong religious themes, and many have overt religious displays, especially those on Egyptian monuments, Sumerian myths, midrash, Greek apologists, and even many Roman histories. Few of the religious soliloquys agree with my own religious beliefs, yet I'm able to separate the expressive portions and the religious motivations from the author's observations, and I can gain value from the reading anyway.

I hope now you have read a little more of where I am coming from that you now see how mistaken your comment here is. I love the study of other cultures and peoples. That includes understanding and learning about their religious expressions. I enjoy studying and understanding Herodotus even more since I have learned that his 'History' is as much a theological narrative as is the Bible's Primary History (Genesis to 2 Kings).

You seem to think that because I said I think a religious expression is out of place in one specific context that I therefore "hate" all religious expressions wherever I see them.

I think you need to re-examine your own biases.

I never feel the need to call Sumerians "primitive" because they still anthropomorphize the sun and moon, I never call them sexist pigs when the write poetry about how their women are like fattened cows, and I never feel I'm in a position to judge anything more than the accuracy of their rendering of facts of history.

For you to take the time to do so is a non-academic pursuit. It's simple bigotry.

Well our cultural values have changed and I do believe we have made some progress over those of the past. Slavery is no longer acceptable, for example. There is little point in judging the ancients by standards that were alien to them now they are all dead.